Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Some Simple Deficit Reduction Arithmetic

Here’s a short lesson about something that every policy-maker should have learned in Macro 101, but apparently has been forgotten by many of them.

Suppose we are in a country that is running a large budget deficit but, for whatever reason, decides that it needs to dramatically reduce it. Take your pick of examples, because there are plenty to choose from: Greece, the UK, the US...

Suppose that the country – let’s call it Austerityland – has a GDP of $100/year, and a budget deficit of $10/yr, or 10% of GDP. And suppose that the government decides it wants to get the deficit down to 5% of GDP. How can it get there?

No, the answer is not “cut spending by $5/yr”. Nor is it “raise taxes by $5/yr”. And last but not least, it is also not “enact a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that total $5/yr”. To see why, let’s do just a bit of arithmetic.

To keep things simple (and to make it particularly relevant to the three examples mentioned above), let’s focus on the strategy of trying to halve the budget deficit primarily through spending cuts. So the government of Austerityland decides to cut spending by $5/yr. What happens?

Recall that GDP is the sum of spending on final goods and services by domestic consumers, domestic businesses, and the government, along with net exports: GDP = C + I + G + (X – M) = Y. Recall as well that GDP is, for our purposes, the same thing as income (Y).

If G is reduced by $5 in Austerityland, the first thing that happens is that GDP falls by $5. But then a bunch of secondary effects kick in, including:

C falls, since individuals in the economy have seen their income drop by $5. This makes GDP fall even further. This is called the “multiplier effect”, and it means that the total fall in GDP is likely to be substantially greater than $5. (Empirical research seems to usually show that the government spending multiplier is in the neighborhood of 1.5, implying that the net fall in GDP will be around $7 or $8.)

If interest rates are positive, they will tend to fall as demand diminishes, which could boost spending by businesses. But if interest rates are already at zero (as they are effectively are in the US), they will not fall, and we get no boost to private investment.

Tax revenues fall as income falls. If the effective marginal tax rate on income is 25% and income falls by $4, for example, then tax collections will fall by $1.

So, what is the budget deficit in Austerityland after a $5 reduction in government spending? If we assume a relatively modest multiplier of 1.5, and a tax rate of 25%, then we get:

ΔG = -$5ΔY = -$7.5ΔT = -$1.875

And the new deficit is now $6.875, which is 7.4% of the new level of GDP. Wait, I thought we were trying to get the deficit down to 5% of GDP? What happened?

What happened is that we’ve missed our target, by quite a bit, due to the multiplier effect and the fall in tax revenues that resulted from the shrinking economy. In fact, just a bit of simple algebra allows us to figure out that government spending in Austerityland will have to be cut by about $9 in order to reach a budget deficit target of 5% of GDP. In other words, the government will have to cut spending by almost twice as much as it initially thought it would in order to reach its deficit target.

(When that happens, by the way, GDP will fall from $100 to around $86. Yes, that’s a 14% drop in output. But hey, at least we’ve hit our deficit reduction target!)

Somehow, this simple exercise in macroeconomic math seems beyond the reach of policymakers around the world.

Many Republicans (and some Democrats) in Washington continue to believe that they can close a $1 trillion deficit by simply cutting $1 trillion in spending, and are apparently hoping to use the debt ceiling vote to do exactly that.

The Cameron government in the UK embarked on an austerity program last year to try to reduce its budget deficit, and now mysteriously keeps missing its deficit reduction targets as the UK economy shrinks.

The Greek government was forced into enacting a number of austerity measures last year, and... surprise, surprise... is now missing its deficit targets.

Why do people keep getting surprised that austerity doesn't work as well as hoped to reach budget deficit targets? I know, I know, there are people who argue that basic Macro 101 has it all wrong. Even people who know better (ahem, Douglas Holtz-Eakin) somehow allow ideology to get them to make the bizaare claim that when income goes down, people will actually increase spending. Confidence fairies and all that.

But when basic Macro 101 both makes good theoretical sense and also fits what we actually observe, it's really time to start looking for your handy Occam's Razor. I wish I could take more satisfaction from the fact that mainstream macroeconomics, as it has been taught to first-year college and university students around the world for decades, does such a good job explaining what we see happening across the globe today...

Dramatic, we know. But the ONS has confirmed the economy grew only 0.5 per cent in 2011′s first quarter after its 0.5 per cent fall in 2010′s last three months... confirming a double-dip in GDP in absolute terms over the period...

More worrying is the fact that sectors which previously pushed recovery forward are now definitely double-dipping.

Here’s Howard Archer of IHS Global Insight:

On the expenditure side of the economy, there was a very worrying drop of 0.6% in consumer spending in the first quarter, which reflected the pressure on spending power coming from elevated inflation and muted wage growth. Consumers also faced high unemployment, elevated debt levels, and a weak housing market.

Also worryingly, business investment plunged 7.1% quarter-on-quarter, which hardly fuels hopes that it can be a major growth driver going forward.

But the thing with re-balancing is — the Treasury wants private investment to fill the hole that will be left by government cuts to spending. It’s not happening.

No, it's not happening. But it's not really surprising that private spending isn't filling the gap left by reduced government spending, given that income is falling...

58 comments:

"<span>the money the government does not borrow from investors will be invested in something else. That investment, then will make up for the loss in GDP created by lessening spending by the govt. "</span>

If the borrowing is from China for example, they will indeed spend it on something else, but in all likelyhood not anything that will increase the US GDP.

<span> "The government is funded either through taxes or by borrowing money, both of which have to come from someone else. In the case of reducing the deficit, the money the government does not borrow from investors will be invested in something else. That investment, then will make up for the loss in GDP created by lessening spending by the govt."</span>

This is pig manure from a person trapped in a "gold bug" mentality. Money is borrowed into existence whether it is borrowed into existence by the FED or the private banks. Monrey is _NOT_ borrrowed from the people who currently have all the money. And as a matter if fact, the creation of additional money lessens the value of the money being hoarded. And it is this INFLATION that makes people INVEST instead of stuffing their mattress with money. To be sure there are limits to this. It is possible to create so much money that the value of the hoarded and created money is erroded too much. But the claim that fiat money comes from some other person or enterprise, or that is mined out of the earth is total clap trap.

<span>1. How much tax revenue declines for a given cut in spending surely depends on what's cut. Is it really likely the decline would be proportionate to the average tax rate across the whole economy prior to the cut? </span>[Actually, the difference in cutting one expense as oppsed to another does not matter in the first dirivative. Money that was flowing into the economy is no loger flowing. Those who argue that the private sector will INVEST as oppsed to buying T-Bonds are loons. There is no "crowding out" if the economy is in recession or in slow growth. And there is no desire on the part of money holders to see a blosoming economy. The more the economy shrinks, the cheaper everyting becomes. Their dollars will buy ever more services.]

<span>2. No account is taken of possible impacts on the trade balance. They might well be relatively small, but they're almost certain to be on the growth side of the equation (i.e. imports down relative to exports). </span>

<span>[If dollars are devalued by creating more of them then the people outside the USA are not going to be seeking dollars. That means that foriegn produced goods will cost more for American consumers. The American entrpreneures will begin to supply the needs of the American consumers. That means jobs and a better economy]</span><span> 3. There's an assumption that government borrowing (and/or monetisation) to fund the spending are frictionless, that they don't have negative effects in the private real economy. Even if small (which seems to me a questionable assumption), they would tend to chip away at whatever multiplier is being used. </span>

<span>[incomprehensible jibbrish] </span>

<span>4. No consideration is given as to whether the government spending being cut was productive. If not, then the real economic effect of any such cuts will be a great deal less. </span>

[Correct!!!! If we cut the war spending the economy will be much better off at the REAL level. The cuts will srill cause an economic contraction at first dirivative. But the actual LOSS is minimized.]<span> 5. Which brings me to the last consideration, nominal vs real. To the extent the resulting fall in GDP brings with it a lower inflation rate than would otherwise have pertained, isn't the effect on the real economy lessened by that difference?</span>

[The national debt is owed in nominal dollars. Using inflated dollars to pay it off lessens the drag on the economy]

Precisely! But, of course, we all know that a booming economy would be a dooming of Republican'ts' political chances in the next election, so they are obviously trying to kill the economy on purpose...

http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/http://www.oliversloans.co.uk/This website tгuly has аll of the infогmatіοn аnd factѕ Ι wanted concernіng this ѕubject and ԁidn't know who to ask.

It іѕ appropriаte time to maκе some planѕ for the futuге and it's time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting things or tips. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!

I like the vаluablе info you proviԁe οn youг articles.I'll bookmark your weblog and take a look at again right here regularly. I'm relativеly certain I'll learn lots of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the following!

Defіnitely belіevе that ωhich уou stаtеԁ.Your favoritе justification appeared to bе on the internet the easiest thing tо bе aware of.I say to you, I definitelу get annoyed while ρeoрle think аbout worries that thеy plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nаіl upon the top аnd definеd out the whole thing wіthout haѵing side-effects , ρeoplе could take a signal. Will likelу be bаck to get more.

It is appropriаtе time to maκе some plans foг the longеr tеrm аnd it's time to be happy. I've read this ρublish and if I could I deѕire to reсommеnd you sοmе fascinating isѕueѕ or tipѕ.Maуbe you could write ѕubsеquent articles гegarding this article.I ԁeѕіre to read even mоre things about іt!

Great blog you havе heгe but I was wanting to knoω if you kneω of any forums thаt сovеr the same toρics talked about in this aгticle?I'd really like to be a part of online community where I can get opinions from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks!

Hі are you using Druрal for youг sіtе platfοrm? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trуing to get started and create my own. Do you need any сoding expertisе to make уouг oωn blog? Аny help would bе greatly appreciated!

I'm excited to find this site. I want to to thank you for ones time just for this wonderful read!! I definitely really liked every little bit of it and I have you saved as a favourite to check out new information on your blog.

Heу just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the ѕcreen in Safari.I'm not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I'd pοst to let yοu knоω.

Thе style and deѕign look great though! Ηoρe you get the problem solѵeԁ ѕoon.All the best

I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your web-site. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it's rare to see a gгeаt blog like this one nowadаys.

Hey, I think your websitе might be having browser compаtibility issues.When I look at your blog ѕite in Safarі, it lookѕ fine but when opening in IΕ, it has some oveгlapping.I ϳust wanted to give уou a quick heаds up!Οther then that, fantaѕtiс blοg!

Hello, Νeat post. Thеrе's an issue with your website in internet explorer, might test this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace leader and a good element of other people will miss your fantastic writing because of this problem.

I am extremely inspіreԁ with your wгiting skills as neatlу as with the format on your blog. Is this a paid toρic or diԁ you moԁify іt your self?Anyway stay up the excellent quаlіty writing, it is uncommοn to peer а nice web-sіte lіκе thiѕ one nowadayѕ..

It is perfect tіmе to maκe some plans for the futuгe and it's time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting things or tips. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read more things about it!

I think this is among the most important info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The website style is ideal, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers

We absolutely lοve your blog аnd find mаny оf youг post's to be just what I'm lоοking for.Does onе offеr guest ωriters to write content for yourself?I ωouldn't mind creating a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome weblog!

Contact

The Street Light is written by economist Kash Mansori, who works as an economic consultant (though views expressed here are entirely his own), writes whenever he can in his spare time, and teaches a bit here and there. You can contact him by writing to the gmail account streetlightblog. (More about Kash.)